Detection of adverse drug events and other treatment outcomes using an electronic prescribing system

Drug Safety

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1005-1016

  Eguale, Tewodros ^a   Tamblyn, Robyn ^a   Winslade, Nancy ^a   Buckeridge, David ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

E prescribing; Pharmacovigilance; Prescribing

Indexed keywords

ALENDRONIC ACID; AMFEBUTAMONE; AMITRIPTYLINE; AMLODIPINE; AMLODIPINE BESYLATE; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; ATORVASTATIN; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; CITALOPRAM; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENT; HORMONE ANALOG; HORMONE DERIVATIVE; HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE; LEVOTHYROXINE SODIUM; METFORMIN; MEVINOLIN; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; PANTOPRAZOLE; RAMIPRIL; ROSIGLITAZONE; VALSARTAN; VENLAFAXINE;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONSTIPATION; COUGHING; DIARRHEA; DIZZINESS; DROWSINESS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; DYSPEPSIA; DYSPHAGIA; ELECTRONIC PRESCRIBING SYSTEM; FATIGUE; HUMAN; HYPOTENSION; INSOMNIA; LEG SWELLING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MYALGIA; NAUSEA; ODYNOPHAGIA; PAIN; PARESTHESIA; POTASSIUM BLOOD LEVEL; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PRURITUS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIDE EFFECT; SOMNOLENCE; STOMACH DISEASE; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; UPSET STOMACH; WEIGHT REDUCTION;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS; ELECTRONIC PRESCRIBING; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 53549104748     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200831110-00005     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: a cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155 (18): 1949-56
2. Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001; 41 (2): 192-9
3. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: pharmacovigilance planning [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/ media/MEDIA1195.pdf [Accessed 2006 Nov 12]
4. Friedman MA, Woodcock J, Lumpkin MM, et al. The safety of newly approved medicines: do recent market removals mean there is a problem? JAMA 1999; 281 (18): 1728-34
5. Rawlins MD, Jefferys DB. Study of United Kingdom product licence applications containing new active substances, 1987-9. BMJ 1991; 302 (6770): 223-5
6. Wiholm BE, Olsson S, Moore N, et al. Spontaneous reporting systems outside the US. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmaco-epidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 175-92
7. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 1999; 282 (8): 790-5
8. Radley DC, Finkelstein SN, Stafford RS. Off-label prescribing among office-based physicians. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166 (9): 1021-6
9. Strom BL, Melmon KL, Miettinen OS. Post-marketing studies of drug efficacy: why? Am J Med 1985; 78 (3): 475-80
10. US Food and Drug Administration. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories announces the withdrawal of Duract (Bromfenac sodium) from the market [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/98/briefingbook/1998-3454B1_03_WL06. pdf [Accessed 2006 Dec 20]
11. Blum MD, Graham DJ, McCloskey CA. Temafloxacin syndrome: review of 95 cases. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18 (6): 946-50
12. Carleton B, Lesko A, Milton J, et al. Active surveillance systems for pediatric adverse drug reactions: an idea whose time has come. Curr Ther Res 2001; 62 (10): 738-42
13. Fletcher AP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med 1991; 84 (6): 341-4
14. Kennedy DL, Goldman SA, Lillie RB. Spontaneous reporting systems in the US. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 151-74
15. Mann RD. Prescription-event monitoring: recent progress and future horizons. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46 (3): 195-201
16. Key C, Layton D, Shakir SA. Results of a postal survey of the reasons for non-response by doctors in a prescription event monitoring study of drug safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11 (2): 143-8
17. Mann RD. Prescription-event monitoring. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 231-46
18. Schoen C, Osborn R, Huynh PT, et al. On the front lines of care: primary care doctors' office systems, experiences, and views in seven countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25 (6): w555-71
19. Effler P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, et al. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. JAMA 1999; 282 (19): 1845-50
20. Muscatello DJ, Churches T, Kaldor J, et al. An automated, broad-based, near real-time public health surveillance system using presentations to hospital emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. BMC Public Health 2005; 5: 141
21. Bell DS, Cretin S, Marken RS, et al. A conceptual framework for evaluating outpatient electronic prescribing systems based on their functional capabilities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (1): 60-70
22. Fischer MA. The national e-prescribing patient safety initiative: removing one hurdle, confronting others. Drug Saf 2007; 30 (6): 461-4
23. Lipton HL, Miller RH, Wimbush JJ. Electronic prescribing: ready for prime time? J Healthc Inf Manag 2003; 17 (4): 72-9
24. Shane R. Computerized physician order entry: challenges and opportunities. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59 (3): 286-8
25. Didham R, Martin I, Wood R, et al. Information technology systems in general practice medicine in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2004; 117 (1198): U977 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1198/977/ content.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 25]
26. Protti D, Wright G, Treweek S, et al. Primary care computing in England and Scotland: a comparison with Denmark. Inform Prim Care 2006; 14 (2): 93-9
27. Vision 2015 advancing Canada's next generation of healthcare [online]. Available from URL: http://www.infoway-in-foroute.ca/en/pdf/ Vision_2015_Advancing_Canadas_next_generation_of_healthcare.pdf [Accessed 2007 Dec 12]
28. Bell DS, Marken RS, Meili RC, et al. Recommendations for comparing electronic prescribing systems: results of an expert consensus process. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; Suppl. Web Exclusives: W4-17 [online]. Available from URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w4.305v1 [Accessed 2008 Aug 25]
29. Waller PC, Evans SJ. A model for the future conduct of pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12 (1): 17-29
30. Klein DF. The flawed basis for FDA post-marketing safety decisions: the example of anti-depressants and children. Neuropsychopharmacology 2006; 31 (4): 689-99
31. Schiff GD, Rucker TD. Computerized prescribing: building the electronic infrastructure for better medication usage. JAMA 1998; 279 (13): 1024-9
32. Tamblyn R, Huang A, Kawasumi Y, et al. The development and evaluation of an integrated electronic prescribing and drug management system for primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (2): 148-59
33. Wang CJ, Marken RS, Meili RC, et al. Functional characteristics of commercial ambulatory electronic prescribing systems: a field study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (3): 346-56
34. Kawasumi Y, Tamblyn R, Platt R, et al. Evaluation of the use of an integrated drug information system by primary care physicians for vulnerable population. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (2): 98-106
35. Bartlett G, Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Non-participation bias in health services research using data from an integrated electronic prescribing project: the role of informed consent. Acta Bioeth 2005; 11 (2): 145-59
36. Irwig L, Glasziou PP, Berry G, et al. Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140 (8): 759-69
37. Rethans JJ, Martin E, Metsemakers J. To what extent do clinical notes by general practitioners reflect actual medical performance? A study using simulated patients. Br J Gen Pract 1994; 44 (381): 153-6
38. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39 (1): 207-15
39. Pepe MS. Incomplete data and imperfect reference tests: verification biased sampling: the statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004: 168-80
40. Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD. GEE analysis of negatively correlated binary responses: a caution. Stat Med 2000; 19 (5): 715-22
41. Couter DM. The New Zealand intensive medicines monitoring programme in pro-active safety surveillance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2000; 9: 273-80
42. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29 (5): 385-96
43. Hanley JA, Lippman-Hand A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA 1983; 249 (13): 1743-5
44. Strom BL. Sample size consideration for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000
45. Protti D, Edworthy S, Johansen I. Adoption of information technology in primary care physician offices in Alberta and Denmark. Part 2: a novel comparison methodology. Electron Healthc 2007; 6 (1): 1-16 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.longwoods.com/product.php?productid=18936 [Accessed 2008 Aug 25]
46. Ukens C. New Medicare law boosts electronic prescribing [letter]. Drug Topics 2004; 148 (3): 101
47. Westfall GR, Narducci WA. A community-pharmacy-based callback program for antibiotic therapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1997; NS37 (3): 330-4
48. National Center for Health Statistics: 2008 symposium of the international collaborative effort (ICE) on automating mortality statistics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/iceautomation.htm [Accessed 2008 May 20]